Atheists

[penultimatestraw 473]

Is this what you tell patients who are dying young from terminal illnesses? "Sorry buddy, there is no after life. Life is all about the living, but sadly you got shafted."

 

Serious question, not hyperbole. I'm curious what your response is to that?

I respect their religious beliefs, but don't feign sharing them. We have pastoral care for that purpose. Fearing death is no reason to believe in God, no matter how comforting the concept may be.

[penultimatestraw 473]

Isn't it the very basis of the scientific method that nothing can ever be truly 100% proven? Everything is a hypothesis, some much more likely than others, but in the end we could conceivably be wrong about just about damn near everything.

There are laws in science. But nothing is beyond reproach/criticism/reappraisal, unlike religious dogma.

[Savage Beast 1]

Not sure if you've ever heard of the concept, but it is a type of logical fallacy. It states something must be true because it hasn't been proven false. So one perceives life's complexity to be "designed"; just because nonbelievers cannot disprove this, believers assume the presence of a creator. In reality we don't know, and may not ever be able to know. Restated in more general terms, the inability to disprove the existence of God is not proof of her existence. Nor is being unable to explain every natural phenomena.

 

Same applies to atheism. Atheism can't be proven true either. HTH

[penultimatestraw 473]

Same applies to atheism. Atheism can't be proven true either. HTH

Nor can it be proven false? Look up Russell's Teapot to understand the difference.

[FeelingMN 273]

I live in Murfreesboro Tennesee, which is home of the ever more infamous mosque controversy. The rednecks here are trying to block a mosque being built, and have already torched the construction equipment once.

 

When I said "irrelevant" I mean that the Muslims have no political clout in this country. Quite frankly, as a "nonaffiliated spiritual seeker" (meaning I don't know what is out there but try to seek it) I generally find the Christians to be far more of a threat in this part of the world than the Muslims.

 

 

From an article about that there mosque in yer neck of the woods:

 

"It's not what's in that building; it's what comes out of that building," Benny Sumrall says.

 

Sumrall says Islam shouldn't get the protection of the First Amendment because it's more than a religion. "They're political people trying to take over the country, so we're praying against that," he says.

 

http://www.npr.org/2012/08/10/158582716/first-prayer-service-held-in-tennessee-mosque

 

 

Oh the irony.

 

And that little snippet right there is why I'm not a religious person. Spiritual? Yeah.....but religious? No focking way.

[Greedo 13]

Can we the Geeks start a religion? And call it the "Who the fock knows?" religion. Yes thats the name.

 

Love it. It's the only legitimate "religion" based on our current level of knowledge.

 

 

Hmm...that's a good point. But existence had to start somewhere,

 

No it didn't. Humans don't have a great grasp of time.

 

How much money or time do you give to charity? And don't tell me that time or money is only charitable in religous eyes. Seriously. Every person I know that is a nonbeliever gives zero time to anybody but themselves.

 

Now you know one that breaks your mold.

 

 

We perceive it as linear but nothing in physics says it is - in fact quite the opposite. What is linear is entropy. People who buy into ID need to read up on M Theory a bit. Based on what is understood right now, it is thought that there are about 500 different sets of possible laws of physics that could be applied to various universes. The fact that we popped up in the universe that had life-friendly laws of physics isn't ID, it's that life would not pop up in universes that have life-unfriendly laws.

 

Exactly - most have the argument backward. And we're getting ever closer as time goes on to understanding - the Higgs Boson discovery is just the next step - I much prefer learning about what actually is going on than praying to a bearded white man in the sky.

 

Is this what you tell patients who are dying young from terminal illnesses? "Sorry buddy, there is no after life. Life is all about the living, but sadly you got shafted."

 

Serious question, not hyperbole. I'm curious what your response is to that?

 

Yes - that sounds about right for me, but I wouldn't say that to someone, because I don't know either. All I know is that there is no evidence to the contrary I'm aware of.

 

Same applies to atheism. Atheism can't be proven true either. HTH

 

Humans do not currently have the means of proving any religion's beliefs true. Humans had to create "faith" to make up for it. At least atheism, unlike other belief systems, can claim nothing has been found to prove itself demonstrably false.

[patweisers44 847]

I don't believe in God so I don't go to church.

 

 

God knows why they are considered a charity and exempt from taxes. Its more of a tax shelter than a charity.

 

Make up your mind man.

[Savage Beast 1]

Humans do not currently have the means of proving any religion's beliefs true. Humans had to create "faith" to make up for it. At least atheism, unlike other belief systems, can claim nothing has been found to prove itself demonstrably false.

 

Both atheists and those who believe in God or gods have the exact same data to go by with their assumptions. It's called "observation". You know, science(scientific method). Atheists have the exact same observation tools to use when studying the known Universe as do people who believe in a God do. And both have opposite ideas(with no born on dated facts either way)as to how it all came to be. Both observe the same Universe, but both have different ideas as to how it all got here. So all human ideas operate on "faith" when it comes to how it all went down, and how it all still goes down. Religious people didn't invent "faith", all basic human nature and behavior is run by "faith", which is defined as confidence and trust. And faith is also defined as belief in "anything", as a code of ethics and standards of merit. Atheists have a code of ethics and standards of merit just like religious people do. But atheists use man as the standard instead of God or gods. All of mankind operates daily by "faith", because it's basic human nature to do so, no matter your religious beliefs or lack there of.

[RLLD 4,237]

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=Y-Tw7WhH_aQ&feature=fvwrel

 

 

I think Islam has cool rules tho

[Gepetto 1,368]

There are scientific explanations for many natural phenomena. One can always reply that science itself is the handiwork of a supreme being, but I prefer to base my beliefs on reproducible, testable hypotheses. The presence or absence of God isn't readily tested, of course, but every time science disproves supernatural rhetoric the whole concept that religion is non-factual becomes more likely.

 

Your alegiance to your friends science is your weakness. -Emperor Palpatine

[Gepetto 1,368]

From Naomi's link...

 

 

 

Because the relativists admit that they do not know. The Chtistians, Muslims, Jews, and every other religion claim with absolute certainty that they DO know, to the point where they attempt to force their beliefs on others.

 

That is why one is arrogant, and the other is not.

 

I have bounced back and forth in my life... for much of my youth, I was a devout Christian. I later became a flaming athiest. I then attempted more than once to believe in Christianity again (mostly for domestic peace with various women). I couldn't put the genie back in the bottle... I knew too much of the history of the early church, and quite frankly, the logical inconsistencies of Christianity could not be overcome in my mind.

 

I have come to peace with the fact that I do not know the nature of God. I like to believe there is one, but I have no real basis for that belief. I have come to the conclusion that God DOES NOT WANT us to know his exact nature. There is no valid dogma. There is no magic book. We are supposed to make our own journey and try to be good people. If that is not enough when I meet the almighty, I will stand before him knowing I did the best I could.

 

Well if that's how you feel, I think God has a place for you in heaven. Some of these Christians (and other Religous people) are not sincere in their beliefs.

[naomi 356]

From Naomi's link...

 

 

 

Because the relativists admit that they do not know. The Chtistians, Muslims, Jews, and every other religion claim with absolute certainty that they DO know, to the point where they attempt to force their beliefs on others.

 

That is why one is arrogant, and the other is not.

 

I have bounced back and forth in my life... for much of my youth, I was a devout Christian. I later became a flaming athiest. I then attempted more than once to believe in Christianity again (mostly for domestic peace with various women). I couldn't put the genie back in the bottle... I knew too much of the history of the early church, and quite frankly, the logical inconsistencies of Christianity could not be overcome in my mind.

 

I have come to peace with the fact that I do not know the nature of God. I like to believe there is one, but I have no real basis for that belief. I have come to the conclusion that God DOES NOT WANT us to know his exact nature. There is no valid dogma. There is no magic book. We are supposed to make our own journey and try to be good people. If that is not enough when I meet the almighty, I will stand before him knowing I did the best I could.

 

If someone's being criticized for believing they know a dogmatic truth because someone believes a dogmatic truth can't be known (a truth claim itself), that's where selective appreciation of arrogance comes in.

 

I don't think someone coming from the standpoint "I don't know, and I doubt you know" is being arrogant. They're just being honest.

 

At the same time I understand someone who says "I don't know, and I believe you don't either." It wouldn't offend me. Because I would expect them to skeptically conclude my 'knowing' is self-deception. But to harangue about how someone claims they know the case, while claiming to know the case, is fair to call hypocrisy.

 

If you're curious enough, read history of the early church that doesn't either reconcile with the Roman Catholic telling of it, or is simply a critique of the Roman Catholic telling.

[cbfalcon 825]

If someone's being criticized for believing they know a dogmatic truth because someone believes a dogmatic truth can't be known (a truth claim itself), that's where selective appreciation of arrogance comes in.

 

I don't think someone coming from the standpoint "I don't know, and I doubt you know" is being arrogant. They're just being honest.

 

At the same time I understand someone who says "I don't know, and I believe you don't either." It wouldn't offend me. Because I would expect them to skeptically conclude my 'knowing' is self-deception. But to harangue about how someone claims they know the case, while claiming to know the case, is fair to call hypocrisy.

 

If you're curious enough, read history of the early church that doesn't either reconcile with the Roman Catholic telling of it, or is simply a critique of the Roman Catholic telling.

 

Huh?

[naomi 356]

Huh?

That was in response to titans saying relativists (as described in my link) aren't arrogant because they "admit that they do not know." The author in the article wasn't talking about a person who would claim that they "don't know"....across the board. He was talking about a person who's claiming that no one can know.

 

Half of my response was saying I don't find that in of itself arrogant...for example "I know no one can know, so I know you don't know." It's understandable. It is hypocritical for that person to be going on about the arrogance of the other, though.

 

My mind admittedly has a ton of fog today so I didn't mind trying that again. It's a really simple point.

[naomi 356]

We are supposed to make our own journey and try to be good people. If that is not enough when I meet the almighty, I will stand before him knowing I did the best I could.

 

Would rather you stand before him knowing it's not about what you could do.

[frank 2,307]

Would rather you stand before him knowing it's not about what you could do.

 

It's not what you do, it's how you do. And this is how we do.

[Mookz 1,349]

I'm not sure if a non believer is automatically classified as an athiest but I have given plenty of time to charity. I've spent thanksgiving serving the poor. I actually paid money to go on a medical mission to ecuador and I intend to go on more medicaal missions in the future once I get surgical experience.

Yeah, but that was all to get chicks.

 

Not sure if you've ever heard of the concept, but it is a type of logical fallacy. It states something must be true because it hasn't been proven false. So one perceives life's complexity to be "designed"; just because nonbelievers cannot disprove this, believers assume the presence of a creator. In reality we don't know, and may not ever be able to know. Restated in more general terms, the inability to disprove the existence of God is not proof of her existence. Nor is being unable to explain every natural phenomena.

Dude, you so just blew my mind.

[Voltaire 5,317]

I've had this discussion before.

 

Me: Atoms came from the big bang.

Them: What made the big bang?

Tell them the former universe was contracting to a single point and the last act of a pre-Universe Bruce Willis being sucked into the unbearable gravity was to detonate something 1000x more powerful than a thermonuclear bomb.

 

We don't know Pre-Universe Bruce Willis's name. He didn't have any special powers and there's no reason to pray to him or send him money because he died in the explosion.

[Voltaire 5,317]

What happens when IGW bears his last breath?

 

At that point, his worms win.

[titans&bucs&bearsohmy! 2,745]

Would rather you stand before him knowing it's not about what you could do.

 

See, I don't believe "the gospel" has any validity whatsoever. That applies to the Torah, the Koran, and all the Eastern "Holy Books" as well.

 

Great pieces of literature? Sure. Good things to live by? Sure. Literal word of God revealed to man? Nope. I know to much about how the Bible got put together and re-translated 47 times to put much stock in it.

 

And Faith being the key? I refuse to believe that a "loving God" would have my eternal soul's perdition rest on whether or not I was able to deny my nature as a rational creature.

[FeelingMN 273]

my nature as a rational creature.

 

link?

[naomi 356]

See, I don't believe "the gospel" has any validity whatsoever. That applies to the Torah, the Koran, and all the Eastern "Holy Books" as well.

 

Great pieces of literature? Sure. Good things to live by? Sure. Literal word of God revealed to man? Nope. I know to much about how the Bible got put together and re-translated 47 times to put much stock in it.

 

And Faith being the key? I refuse to believe that a "loving God" would have my eternal soul's perdition rest on whether or not I was able to deny my nature as a rational creature.

 

According to the bible man's nature is at emnity with God. You're not going to have God given faith through managing to choose to accept something. We don't get around our natures. God can deal with a person's heart though, and he reveals our dependence on him...which is naturally a really distasteful, vexing, dishonorable idea, coming from an unbelieving perspective. We like to be our own Gods. Dependence sounds like recognizing weakness, and that recognition we imagine will lead into compliance, and we're smart enough to know our heart won't actually like it. We'll be living based on an eternal condemnation escaping contingency plan. Not fun, but safe, in case it will have mattered. That's natural man's best idea of what faith in practice is. It's all the better if we can rationally, objectively- so far as we can see, conclude within ourselves that man doesn't have any dependence on or accountability to his Creator. We rest in our intellect and have plenty of material (because the world is full of men) out there to draw on in buttressing up our naturally favored idea of what truth is, or at the least, is not. We either like to be a law unto ourselves, venerating our innate righteousness, or we might feel a little safer accepting some of man's spiritually usurped authority in laying out to us what allegedly puts us in a good stead with God, if he's up there. We never actually seek God, as he truly is.* We can't. "Grace is a provision for men who are so fallen that they cannot lift the axe of justice, so corrupt that they cannot change their own natures, so averse to God that they cannot turn to Him, so blind that they cannot see Him, so deaf that they cannot hear Him, and so dead that He himself must open their graves and lift them into resurrection." G.S. Bishop

 

"As it is written, There is none righteous, no, not one: There is none that understandeth, there is none that seeketh after God." Romans 3:10-11

 

*The despisement of Christ

[titans&bucs&bearsohmy! 2,745]

According to the bible man's nature is at emnity with God.

 

So a loving God created us with a nature at emnity with himself? That sound's pretty focked up, sorry. It would be like me getting mad at my baby for sh!tting its pants and punishing it.

 

IMO, faith is just an ingenious cop out religions came up with to control people. "Don't believe our stuff because we have no proof? Aha! That's just it... you have to believe WITHOUT proof!"

 

Serious question Naomi. And please understand, I'm not trying to be hostile if it comes off that way, I like debating this stuff, and you are a smart, knowledgeable person I happen to disagree with is all.

 

Anyway...

 

You are a Christian I assume. You have faith that God sent his only begotten son to die for our sins, and through that act of grace, we are redeemed. Or some such. I would assume that you believe that because you "feel it in your heart" or had some other such divine revelation that you personally feel.

 

Again, I'm not mocking anything, I'm just defining the parameters here.

 

So why is it that all the people in Europe, North America, Australia, etc. strongly feel THAT revelation, while all the ones in Turkey, Iran, etc, strongly feel in their hearts that "There is no God but God, and Muhammed is his prophet", while those in india presumably feel some revelation that has to do with Brahma or Vishnu or whatever, and those in China something to do with Bhudda, etc.

 

How is it that God (presuming there is one, and only one) speaks to people's hearts within such definite geographical boundaries?

 

Why did God choose to reveal his Grace and method of salvation (in the person of his Son) to a small segment of the population AFTER thousands of years of human history had already passed? People in southern Africa, or Japan, or the Western Hemisphere, had absolutely ZERO chance to be redeemed until approximately 1,500 years later! Did God not love the ancient greeks? Or the Aztecs? Or the Japanese?

 

____

 

You see my points?

 

When I was younger, I mocked the whole thing, and was a fervent atheist. In more recent years, I have put all the crap aside, and just prayed to whatever is out there. I don't worry about whether he sent a son, or whether he had a prophet, or whether there is a holy book. I just pray to the unknown diety. And I do feel SOMETHING, and it does give me peace and strength. Now an atheist would tell me that I have just invented my own pancea, and that I am praying to nothing. And of course, I can't disprove that. But I believe, and that's fine. I have chosen not to worry about the rest of it.

 

But according to the beliefs of well north of 70% of the human population, I would be damned to perdition. Was Jesus, the son of Mary of Nazereth, the semi divine son of God? I have no idea. Wasn't there. And there are two-thousand years of dissembling, lies, distortions and exaggerations between me and whatever took place in Jerusalem. Was Mohammed a prophet, or a nutjob? What about Bhudda? Joseph Smith? Jim Jones? No idea. Never met any of them. It would be impossible for me to know.

 

So I guess the ultimate question in all that rant is... How does one choose what to have faith in? Evidence would seem to suggest that 99% of the time, the answer has to do with culture, or where one was raised.

 

Honestly, I just think all the stuff... the sins, the rules, the books, the tithes, the pilgrimiges... its all just things man, in his greed and lust for power, has made up to control others. I'm not saying there are no actions that offend God, or that there is not evil... I think that's what we have a conscience for, and, some day, we will all answer for our actions.

 

God is great. Religion, on the other hand, is the most wicked evil ever perpetrated on mankind.

[penultimatestraw 473]

So a loving God created us with a nature at emnity with himself? That sound's pretty focked up, sorry. It would be like me getting mad at my baby for sh!tting its pants and punishing it.

 

IMO, faith is just an ingenious cop out religions came up with to control people. "Don't believe our stuff because we have no proof? Aha! That's just it... you have to believe WITHOUT proof!"

 

Serious question Naomi. And please understand, I'm not trying to be hostile if it comes off that way, I like debating this stuff, and you are a smart, knowledgeable person I happen to disagree with is all.

 

Anyway...

 

You are a Christian I assume. You have faith that God sent his only begotten son to die for our sins, and through that act of grace, we are redeemed. Or some such. I would assume that you believe that because you "feel it in your heart" or had some other such divine revelation that you personally feel.

 

Again, I'm not mocking anything, I'm just defining the parameters here.

 

So why is it that all the people in Europe, North America, Australia, etc. strongly feel THAT revelation, while all the ones in Turkey, Iran, etc, strongly feel in their hearts that "There is no God but God, and Muhammed is his prophet", while those in india presumably feel some revelation that has to do with Brahma or Vishnu or whatever, and those in China something to do with Bhudda, etc.

 

How is it that God (presuming there is one, and only one) speaks to people's hearts within such definite geographical boundaries?

 

Why did God choose to reveal his Grace and method of salvation (in the person of his Son) to a small segment of the population AFTER thousands of years of human history had already passed? People in southern Africa, or Japan, or the Western Hemisphere, had absolutely ZERO chance to be redeemed until approximately 1,500 years later! Did God not love the ancient greeks? Or the Aztecs? Or the Japanese?

 

____

 

You see my points?

 

When I was younger, I mocked the whole thing, and was a fervent atheist. In more recent years, I have put all the crap aside, and just prayed to whatever is out there. I don't worry about whether he sent a son, or whether he had a prophet, or whether there is a holy book. I just pray to the unknown diety. And I do feel SOMETHING, and it does give me peace and strength. Now an atheist would tell me that I have just invented my own pancea, and that I am praying to nothing. And of course, I can't disprove that. But I believe, and that's fine. I have chosen not to worry about the rest of it.

 

But according to the beliefs of well north of 70% of the human population, I would be damned to perdition. Was Jesus, the son of Mary of Nazereth, the semi divine son of God? I have no idea. Wasn't there. And there are two-thousand years of dissembling, lies, distortions and exaggerations between me and whatever took place in Jerusalem. Was Mohammed a prophet, or a nutjob? What about Bhudda? Joseph Smith? Jim Jones? No idea. Never met any of them. It would be impossible for me to know.

 

So I guess the ultimate question in all that rant is... How does one choose what to have faith in? Evidence would seem to suggest that 99% of the time, the answer has to do with culture, or where one was raised.

 

Honestly, I just think all the stuff... the sins, the rules, the books, the tithes, the pilgrimiges... its all just things man, in his greed and lust for power, has made up to control others. I'm not saying there are no actions that offend God, or that there is not evil... I think that's what we have a conscience for, and, some day, we will all answer for our actions.

 

God is great. Religion, on the other hand, is the most wicked evil ever perpetrated on mankind.

Excellent post. I've always had a big problem with the concept of a vindictive, selective God. Religion has been, and always will be about control.

[cbfalcon 825]

Titans, I am truly enjoying your posts in this thread simply because I have made almost exactly all the same points time and time again throughout my life when debating this topic with those that take issue with my beliefs, or lack there of.

 

[jets24 6]

Excellent post. I've always had a big problem with the concept of a vindictive, selective God. Religion has been, and always will be about control.

 

Actually, that's nothing but your opinion. I happen to completely disagree.

[Little Rusty 18]

The good thing is that when it's all over, we ALL find out the truth.

[Voltaire 5,317]

The good thing is that when it's all over, we ALL find out the truth.

 

Until that happens, I don't have to waste any time contemplating bullsh*t, view porn without guilt, and can put all the money I'm not giving them to better use.

[cbfalcon 825]

The good thing is that when it's all over, we ALL find out the truth.

 

Or the millisecond we die, we just cease to be and never have that moment where we realize the truth at all.

[naomi 356]

So a loving God created us with a nature at emnity with himself? That sound's pretty focked up, sorry. It would be like me getting mad at my baby for sh!tting its pants and punishing it.

 

God is fully righteous and man has a sin nature he's in bondage to. "The heart is deceitful above all things, and desperately wicked: who can know it?" Jeremiah 17 (it continues, 'I the Lord search the heart'..) Man didn't have that nature from the beginning. I know that everything has fallen out how God knew it would. He knew man would fall. The thing is our natures deserve condemnation. It's not unfair because we're actually fit for it.

 

Why create something that's going to at some point be fit for it though? And also let a fully innocent (where there is no parallel among men) life stand in? The bible says that God created man for his glory. In our minds, we can only connect with "vain glory" in reaction to that...we're also not God though. Glorifying ourselves is, fairly speaking, perverse. God being gloried through man isn't. I believe history will wrap up as written in the bible. So the work on whole (obviously if you're conceding it) is interesting, definitely intriguing.

 

I happened to come across this earlier and was a little surprised that it was basically good. It's an interesting note paired with what you're saying. The "accepted so I obey" could be misleadingly vague though. It's talking about people who know they were bought with a great price, people who have a Comforter bearing witness in their hearts, people who intimately know they can grieve their redeemer with their actions (though it will never change the fact they're redeemed), and people who are subject to his chastening (God alone chastens his own). That's why there's desire for God extending beyond the salvation a Christian already knows.

 

Serious question Naomi. And please understand, I'm not trying to be hostile if it comes off that way, I like debating this stuff, and you are a smart, knowledgeable person I happen to disagree with is all.

 

Anyway...

 

You are a Christian I assume. You have faith that God sent his only begotten son to die for our sins, and through that act of grace, we are redeemed. Or some such. I would assume that you believe that because you "feel it in your heart" or had some other such divine revelation that you personally feel.

 

Again, I'm not mocking anything, I'm just defining the parameters here.

 

So why is it that all the people in Europe, North America, Australia, etc. strongly feel THAT revelation, while all the ones in Turkey, Iran, etc, strongly feel in their hearts that "There is no God but God, and Muhammed is his prophet", while those in india presumably feel some revelation that has to do with Brahma or Vishnu or whatever, and those in China something to do with Bhudda, etc.

 

How is it that God (presuming there is one, and only one) speaks to people's hearts within such definite geographical boundaries?

 

Why did God choose to reveal his Grace and method of salvation (in the person of his Son) to a small segment of the population AFTER thousands of years of human history had already passed? People in southern Africa, or Japan, or the Western Hemisphere, had absolutely ZERO chance to be redeemed until approximately 1,500 years later! Did God not love the ancient greeks? Or the Aztecs? Or the Japanese?

 

____

 

You see my points?

 

 

Yes, I do see them. But they don't stand if the bible's account of history from the beginning on, is true.

 

Regarding more modern though still long past times, have you ever heard about Christianity spreading like a flame? (and by that, I don't mean Catholicism, by the sword). The gospel taking root, without compulsion, only personal impact on a large scale.

 

It has steadily gone out in adverse climates. It has bowled over cultures in awakenings, and in those scenarios- faded off in the following generations' hearts, but some lasting mark was left.

 

The product of both is that you always have a remnant left over, and the highest densities of what is still overall, that remnant, are found amidst the persecuted. It so often came down to a remnant, with how the bible reports history, and it prophecies that it will end as a remnant.

 

Go ye therefore, and teach all nations, baptizing them in the name of the Father, and of the Son, and of the Holy Ghost:

 

Teaching them to observe all things whatsoever I have commanded you: and, lo, I am with you always, even unto the end of the world. Amen. (Matthew 28:19-20)

 

Between all the prophetic books in the bible, especially the book of Revelation, Christians realize there's this picture that the end is a really, really, crappy time for them. It talks about severe persecution, it talks about people mocking "where is your God to rescue you?" (paraphrasing) because things are going to be so horrendously awful. It says it's almost to the point that even the elect are deceived (they can't ultimately be because they belong to Christ and that stead won't change).

 

..."even unto the end of the world." They'll need that.

 

Back to the dissemination point though. You know how people talk about the bible ripping off Zoroastrianism? The bible talks about 'mystery religions' existing in history before its writing. The first people knew the gospel, they knew of a redeemer to come. We know of a redeemer who came. The gospel was known in Old Testament times, it was known before those times. If the bible is honest. "For therein is the righteousness of God revealed from faith to faith: as it is written, The just shall live by faith. For the wrath of God is revealed from heaven against all ungodliness and unrighteousness of men, who hold the truth in unrighteousness; Because that which may be known of God is manifest in them; for God hath shewed it unto them. For the invisible things of him from the creation of the world are clearly seen, being understood by the things that are made, even his eternal power and Godhead; so that they are without excuse: Because that, when they knew God, they glorified him not as God, neither were thankful; but became vain in their imaginations, and their foolish heart was darkened. Professing themselves to be wise, they became fools, And changed the glory of the uncorruptible God into an image made like to corruptible man, and to birds, and fourfooted beasts, and creeping things." Romans 1:17-23

 

That happened really early on. Truth was known, and the best lies incorporate truth. All manner of people stemmed from people aware of the gospel. After Christ's life, death and resurrection the 'great commission' was given (section in Matthew above). People in that region knew prophecy had been fulfilled, and were commanded to share that development (the 'good news'). There's been desire for people to know what God has done and is doing. Aside from men perverting truth, rejecting it, and being negligent with it, there wouldn't be people left out from hearing the gospel.

 

When I was younger, I mocked the whole thing, and was a fervent atheist. In more recent years, I have put all the crap aside, and just prayed to whatever is out there. I don't worry about whether he sent a son, or whether he had a prophet, or whether there is a holy book. I just pray to the unknown diety. And I do feel SOMETHING, and it does give me peace and strength. Now an atheist would tell me that I have just invented my own pancea, and that I am praying to nothing. And of course, I can't disprove that. But I believe, and that's fine. I have chosen not to worry about the rest of it.

 

But according to the beliefs of well north of 70% of the human population, I would be damned to perdition. Was Jesus, the son of Mary of Nazereth, the semi divine son of God? I have no idea. Wasn't there. And there are two-thousand years of dissembling, lies, distortions and exaggerations between me and whatever took place in Jerusalem. Was Mohammed a prophet, or a nutjob? What about Bhudda? Joseph Smith? Jim Jones? No idea. Never met any of them. It would be impossible for me to know.

 

So I guess the ultimate question in all that rant is... How does one choose what to have faith in? Evidence would seem to suggest that 99% of the time, the answer has to do with culture, or where one was raised.

 

Personally (and I definitely would expect you to think that despite what I'm saying, I chose) I don't believe I chose. Not in the sense of making a choice that effected my faith. God effected my faith. I wanted Christ to have stood in my place when I saw that I actually needed that...was screwed without it, regardless of however 'good' I could live my life. It was that seeing (and this is where I can totally understand why John Newton had the flow of thought he does in 'Amazing Grace') that was compelling, and anyone brought to that point will necessarily want the same thing. One thing that sets biblically reconciling Christianity apart from every other religion is grace. Under the umbrella of Christianity lots of men can be found using it for control. With every religion your fate is in your hands, if you do _______. The _______ can range from rigid rules to accepting fluid spiritual ethos you can peaceably incorporate into your lifestyle. With biblically reconciling Christianity, you can't effect anything about your spiritual fate.

 

After Paul was describing grace, contrasting it with the law:

 

"What shall we say then? Shall we continue in sin, that grace may abound? God forbid. How shall we, that are dead to sin, live any longer therein? Know ye not, that so many of us as were baptized into Jesus Christ were baptized into his death? Therefore we are buried with him by baptism into death: that like as Christ was raised up from the dead by the glory of the Father, even so we also should walk in newness of life. For if we have been planted together in the likeness of his death, we shall be also in the likeness of his resurrection: Knowing this, that our old man is crucified with him, that the body of sin might be destroyed, that henceforth we should not serve sin. For he that is dead is freed from sin." (Romans 6:1-7)

 

Sin no longer has dominion over us (it's not that we've become sinless from salvation, forward). There's actually a nature in us that respects God. And it makes sin lose its sweetness. Righteousness (that seems like it takes sacrifice, culturally) actually becomes sweet, not utterly unappealing. Grace working is purely to credit for that.

 

I think there's a lot of spiritual deception in the world. In many cases people are experiencing something, it's not just in their heads. It's not good either, but something is actually going on. (Not suggesting that's your case with the praying).

 

But back to the fate thing, doing things toward your own fate is a huge hook, religiously. There's nothing I have to do before another man or men for me to understand I'm a Christian. All I base that on is a relationship between God and myself, and that his word is alive to me. The interplay between those three things is all there is attending it, and that dynamic has existed with men without the written word in the mix. The word was still there though.

 

In the beginning was the Word, and the Word was with God, and the Word was God. The same* was in the beginning with God. All things were made by him; and without him was not any thing made that was made. In him was life; and the life was the light of men. And the light shineth in darkness; and the darkness comprehended it not. John 1:1-5

 

*'The same' as in "literally, this one; the one first named; the Word." (Greek commentary)

 

Honestly, I just think all the stuff... the sins, the rules, the books, the tithes, the pilgrimiges... its all just things man, in his greed and lust for power, has made up to control others. I'm not saying there are no actions that offend God, or that there is not evil... I think that's what we have a conscience for, and, some day, we will all answer for our actions.

 

God is great. Religion, on the other hand, is the most wicked evil ever perpetrated on mankind.

 

Might rain check here. So incredibly sleepy.

[jets24 6]

I know in my heart that God exists. I can't explain it any simpler than that. I have always felt his presence through good and bad times. I feel sorry and pray for others that don't feel this. I truly do.

[jerryskids 6,805]

Until that happens, I don't have to waste any time contemplating bullsh*t, view porn without guilt, and can put all the money I'm not giving them to better use.

In China? You can't even view youtube.

[penultimatestraw 473]

I know in my heart that God exists. I can't explain it any simpler than that. I have always felt his presence through good and bad times. I feel sorry and pray for others that don't feel this. I truly do.

Actually, that's nothing but your opinion. I happen to completely disagree.

 

I feel sorry for people who invest so much of their precious, finite time on nonsense.

[Voltaire 5,317]

In China? You can't even view youtube.

They got all bent out of shape because people were singing songs ridiculing, mocking, and finding other ways to make fun of the Chinese Communist Party.

 

Everybody loves pron.

[titans&bucs&bearsohmy! 2,745]

God is fully righteous and man has a sin nature he's in bondage to. "The heart is deceitful above all things, and desperately wicked: who can know it?" Jeremiah 17 (it continues, 'I the Lord search the heart'..) Man didn't have that nature from the beginning. I know that everything has fallen out how God knew it would. He knew man would fall. The thing is our natures deserve condemnation. It's not unfair because we're actually fit for it.

 

Why create something that's going to at some point be fit for it though? And also let a fully innocent (where there is no parallel among men) life stand in? The bible says that God created man for his glory. In our minds, we can only connect with "vain glory" in reaction to that...we're also not God though. Glorifying ourselves is, fairly speaking, perverse. God being gloried through man isn't. I believe history will wrap up as written in the bible. So the work on whole (obviously if you're conceding it) is interesting, definitely intriguing.

 

I happened to come across this earlier and was a little surprised that it was basically good. It's an interesting note paired with what you're saying. The "accepted so I obey" could be misleadingly vague though. It's talking about people who know they were bought with a great price, people who have a Comforter bearing witness in their hearts, people who intimately know they can grieve their redeemer with their actions (though it will never change the fact they're redeemed), and people who are subject to his chastening (God alone chastens his own). That's why there's desire for God extending beyond the salvation a Christian already knows.

 

 

 

Yes, I do see them. But they don't stand if the bible's account of history from the beginning on, is true.

 

Regarding more modern though still long past times, have you ever heard about Christianity spreading like a flame? (and by that, I don't mean Catholicism, by the sword). The gospel taking root, without compulsion, only personal impact on a large scale.

 

It has steadily gone out in adverse climates. It has bowled over cultures in awakenings, and in those scenarios- faded off in the following generations' hearts, but some lasting mark was left.

 

The product of both is that you always have a remnant left over, and the highest densities of what is still overall, that remnant, are found amidst the persecuted. It so often came down to a remnant, with how the bible reports history, and it prophecies that it will end as a remnant.

 

Go ye therefore, and teach all nations, baptizing them in the name of the Father, and of the Son, and of the Holy Ghost:

 

Teaching them to observe all things whatsoever I have commanded you: and, lo, I am with you always, even unto the end of the world. Amen. (Matthew 28:19-20)

 

Between all the prophetic books in the bible, especially the book of Revelation, Christians realize there's this picture that the end is a really, really, crappy time for them. It talks about severe persecution, it talks about people mocking "where is your God to rescue you?" (paraphrasing) because things are going to be so horrendously awful. It says it's almost to the point that even the elect are deceived (they can't ultimately be because they belong to Christ and that stead won't change).

 

..."even unto the end of the world." They'll need that.

 

Back to the dissemination point though. You know how people talk about the bible ripping off Zoroastrianism? The bible talks about 'mystery religions' existing in history before its writing. The first people knew the gospel, they knew of a redeemer to come. We know of a redeemer who came. The gospel was known in Old Testament times, it was known before those times. If the bible is honest. "For therein is the righteousness of God revealed from faith to faith: as it is written, The just shall live by faith. For the wrath of God is revealed from heaven against all ungodliness and unrighteousness of men, who hold the truth in unrighteousness; Because that which may be known of God is manifest in them; for God hath shewed it unto them. For the invisible things of him from the creation of the world are clearly seen, being understood by the things that are made, even his eternal power and Godhead; so that they are without excuse: Because that, when they knew God, they glorified him not as God, neither were thankful; but became vain in their imaginations, and their foolish heart was darkened. Professing themselves to be wise, they became fools, And changed the glory of the uncorruptible God into an image made like to corruptible man, and to birds, and fourfooted beasts, and creeping things." Romans 1:17-23

 

That happened really early on. Truth was known, and the best lies incorporate truth. All manner of people stemmed from people aware of the gospel. After Christ's life, death and resurrection the 'great commission' was given (section in Matthew above). People in that region knew prophecy had been fulfilled, and were commanded to share that development (the 'good news'). There's been desire for people to know what God has done and is doing. Aside from men perverting truth, rejecting it, and being negligent with it, there wouldn't be people left out from hearing the gospel.

 

 

 

Personally (and I definitely would expect you to think that despite what I'm saying, I chose) I don't believe I chose. Not in the sense of making a choice that effected my faith. God effected my faith. I wanted Christ to have stood in my place when I saw that I actually needed that...was screwed without it, regardless of however 'good' I could live my life. It was that seeing (and this is where I can totally understand why John Newton had the flow of thought he does in 'Amazing Grace') that was compelling, and anyone brought to that point will necessarily want the same thing. One thing that sets biblically reconciling Christianity apart from every other religion is grace. Under the umbrella of Christianity lots of men can be found using it for control. With every religion your fate is in your hands, if you do _______. The _______ can range from rigid rules to accepting fluid spiritual ethos you can peaceably incorporate into your lifestyle. With biblically reconciling Christianity, you can't effect anything about your spiritual fate.

 

After Paul was describing grace, contrasting it with the law:

 

"What shall we say then? Shall we continue in sin, that grace may abound? God forbid. How shall we, that are dead to sin, live any longer therein? Know ye not, that so many of us as were baptized into Jesus Christ were baptized into his death? Therefore we are buried with him by baptism into death: that like as Christ was raised up from the dead by the glory of the Father, even so we also should walk in newness of life. For if we have been planted together in the likeness of his death, we shall be also in the likeness of his resurrection: Knowing this, that our old man is crucified with him, that the body of sin might be destroyed, that henceforth we should not serve sin. For he that is dead is freed from sin." (Romans 6:1-7)

 

Sin no longer has dominion over us (it's not that we've become sinless from salvation, forward). There's actually a nature in us that respects God. And it makes sin lose its sweetness. Righteousness (that seems like it takes sacrifice, culturally) actually becomes sweet, not utterly unappealing. Grace working is purely to credit for that.

 

I think there's a lot of spiritual deception in the world. In many cases people are experiencing something, it's not just in their heads. It's not good either, but something is actually going on. (Not suggesting that's your case with the praying).

 

But back to the fate thing, doing things toward your own fate is a huge hook, religiously. There's nothing I have to do before another man or men for me to understand I'm a Christian. All I base that on is a relationship between God and myself, and that his word is alive to me. The interplay between those three things is all there is attending it, and that dynamic has existed with men without the written word in the mix. The word was still there though.

 

In the beginning was the Word, and the Word was with God, and the Word was God. The same* was in the beginning with God. All things were made by him; and without him was not any thing made that was made. In him was life; and the life was the light of men. And the light shineth in darkness; and the darkness comprehended it not. John 1:1-5

 

*'The same' as in "literally, this one; the one first named; the Word." (Greek commentary)

 

 

 

Might rain check here. So incredibly sleepy.

 

Yes, Christianity spread like wildfire. Of course, part of that was...

 

1. If you didin't at least pretend to believe, you got burned alive

 

and

 

2. If you wanted any advancement in the world, you better damn well believe.

 

And of course, other religions (namely Islam) have had similar, if not more impressive, growth.

 

Anyway, I'm gonna go sleep a little.

[naomi 356]

Yes, Christianity spread like wildfire. Of course, part of that was...

 

1. If you didin't at least pretend to believe, you got burned alive

 

and

 

2. If you wanted any advancement in the world, you better damn well believe.

 

And of course, other religions (namely Islam) have had similar, if not more impressive, growth.

 

Anyway, I'm gonna go sleep a little.

 

1- That's why I qualified that with non-Catholic spread.

 

2- That's why that was qualified with non-coerced spread. Those significant spurts (in contrast to steadily holding and oppressed presence in climates like modern day India, Pakistan and China) happened amidst antagonistic power structures, not ones embracing them. That's unique about non-Catholic Christianity (not using the word Protestant because there were non-Catholic believers from the start, so definitely prior to the Reformation).

 

Some books if you're curious about how non-Catholic Christians (definitely not the victors) write on history of the early Christian church (often using Roman sources for their insight):

A History of the Baptists by John T. Christian (From the time of Christ on. These are people who were for a long stretch extremely thinned out by persecution)

 

The Spreading Flame: The Rise and Progress of Christianity from Its First Beginnings to the Conversion of the English by F.F. Bruce

 

History of the Christian Church by Phillip Schaff

[Savage Beast 1]

Why did God choose to reveal his Grace and method of salvation (in the person of his Son) to a small segment of the population AFTER thousands of years of human history had already passed? People in southern Africa, or Japan, or the Western Hemisphere, had absolutely ZERO chance to be redeemed until approximately 1,500 years later! Did God not love the ancient greeks? Or the Aztecs? Or the Japanese?

 

Universalism is un-Biblical. When men seek out to find God, they join cults. Because men can't choose God, God has to choose men. Christ made it clear that "NO MAN" comes to salvation unless God himself draws him to salvation(John 6:44). Most American churches teach watered down "universalism" which states that all you have to do is choose Jesus, say a prayer, and you will be saved. Which is total "bullsh!+". God only chooses an elect few for salvation, for his glory alone, and the rest are doomed to the destruction we all deserve for disobeying God constantly. Christ said himself that God gives him his sheep, and that his sheep know his voice. So how can a goat know the shepherd's voice if he is not one of the sheep? He can't, that's how. So how do you know you are selected to God for adoption as one of his sons? If you are drawn by God to Christ by his voice, that's how. It's not a choice "you" made, it's a choice "God" made(Eph 1:5). Since when has an orphan kicked in the front door of a man's house and told that man "I choose you to be my father, and everything you own is now mine"? It doesn't ever work that way. The father goes to the orphanage ans carefully selects the child who he wants to call his son, and then makes that child an heir to his property. The themes in the Bible are crystal clear, that only a few chosen people are spared by God, while the rest get what they rightly deserve, which is justice. Only the few chosen know the shepherds voice. Many are invited to the wedding, but the chosen of the wedding are few(Matt 22:14). And only the chosen have wedding garments, the rest are cast into outer darkness where they belong(Matt 22:13). The entire theme of the Bible is that God always chooses only a few men to save, while destroying the rest. And before you say "NO FAIR", every man who has ever been born deserves destruction, including even me, the Savage beast, a true prophet of God. God chose Abram(who was a pagan Arab cultist from Mesopotamia), and changed his name to Abraham, and made a covenant with this pagan man if he would do as God told him to. And Abraham did. But Abraham was not perfect by any means, he also disobeyed God and lied about Sarai(Sarah) being his wife in order to spare his own life. But God chose Abraham, so Abraham was righteous in God's eyes, so this is why Abraham is not in Hell. Because he was chosen by God. Abraham did not choose God, he was a pagan before God sought him out and chose him. Lot the nephew of Abraham was chosen by God to be spared from the utter destruction of Sodom and Gomorrah. The rest were destroyed, including Lot's own wife for disobeying God. Noah was chosen from his geographical Middle East region to be spared the flood, while the rest were destroyed. And Noah's family was spared as well, but only because God chose Noah, and it was Noah's imparted righteousness on his pagan sons that spared their lives. The bible does not say Noah chose God. Noah said "God, i choose you, and therefore I deserve to be spared from dying in the flood". That's not how it works. God chooses who he will spare from utter destruction, not the other way around. And "EVERY MAN" deserves to be destroyed, because every man has conceived sin in his heart(James 1:14-15), and please don't try to blame sin on the mythological creature called Lucifer. Because the Hebrew noun שָׂטָן(satan) means adversary, and it's not a capitalized proper name or a synonym of the Hebrew word הֵילֵל(heylel the light bearer morning star) either. Satan is not a bad word at all. Christ the Angel of the Lord himself is called שָׂטָן(satan) in (Numbers 22:22). The Angel of the Lord was an adversaryשָׂטָן(satan) to Balaam, because Balaam kindeled the anger of God. The Hebrew noun (satan) simply means adversary and nothing more. God is love, but God is also sovereign, and therefore 100% moral and without error. Which means God and God alone has the authority to either spare a man, o condemn a man to outer darkness. And God makes it crystal that if he gives a man faith in his son the Christ, that man will be spared outer darkness because of his son the Christ's sake alone. Those sheep God gives to his son the Christ are adopted as sons and daughters and are joint heirs to the son's property for the son's sake. The shepherd son gave his life for his sheep, and bought them with a blood price(1 Cor 6:20), so those who were bought by the shepherd are now his sheep. If you aren't bought by God, then it's outer darkness for you, and you deserve even worse, as do all men. So in the words of the great poet William Munny "Deserves got nothin to do with it". You are either one of the chosen few, or you are not. End of story.

[Voltaire 5,317]

Universalism is un-Biblical. When men seek out to find God, they join cults. Because men can't choose God, God has to choose men. Christ made it clear that "NO MAN" comes to salvation unless God himself draws him to salvation(John 6:44). Most American churches teach watered down "universalism" which states that all you have to do is choose Jesus, say a prayer, and you will be saved. Which is total "bullsh!+". God only chooses an elect few for salvation, for his glory alone, and the rest are doomed to the destruction we all deserve for disobeying God constantly. Christ said himself that God gives him his sheep, and that his sheep know his voice. So how can a goat know the shepherd's voice if he is not one of the sheep? He can't, that's how. So how do you know you are selected to God for adoption as one of his sons? If you are drawn by God to Christ by his voice, that's how. It's not a choice "you" made, it's a choice "God" made(Eph 1:5). Since when has an orphan kicked in the front door of a man's house and told that man "I choose you to be my father, and everything you own is now mine"? It doesn't ever work that way. The father goes to the orphanage ans carefully selects the child who he wants to call his son, and then makes that child an heir to his property. The themes in the Bible are crystal clear, that only a few chosen people are spared by God, while the rest get what they rightly deserve, which is justice. Only the few chosen know the shepherds voice. Many are invited to the wedding, but the chosen of the wedding are few(Matt 22:14). And only the chosen have wedding garments, the rest are cast into outer darkness where they belong(Matt 22:13). The entire theme of the Bible is that God always chooses only a few men to save, while destroying the rest. And before you say "NO FAIR", every man who has ever been born deserves destruction, including even me, the Savage beast, a true prophet of God. God chose Abram(who was a pagan Arab cultist from Mesopotamia), and changed his name to Abraham, and made a covenant with this pagan man if he would do as God told him to. And Abraham did. But Abraham was not perfect by any means, he also disobeyed God and lied about Sarai(Sarah) being his wife in order to spare his own life. But God chose Abraham, so Abraham was righteous in God's eyes, so this is why Abraham is not in Hell. Because he was chosen by God. Abraham did not choose God, he was a pagan before God sought him out and chose him. Lot the nephew of Abraham was chosen by God to be spared from the utter destruction of Sodom and Gomorrah. The rest were destroyed, including Lot's own wife for disobeying God. Noah was chosen from his geographical Middle East region to be spared the flood, while the rest were destroyed. And Noah's family was spared as well, but only because God chose Noah, and it was Noah's imparted righteousness on his pagan sons that spared their lives. The bible does not say Noah chose God. Noah said "God, i choose you, and therefore I deserve to be spared from dying in the flood". That's not how it works. God chooses who he will spare from utter destruction, not the other way around. And "EVERY MAN" deserves to be destroyed, because every man has conceived sin in his heart(James 1:14-15), and please don't try to blame sin on the mythological creature called Lucifer. Because the Hebrew noun שָׂטָן(satan) means adversary, and it's not a capitalized proper name or a synonym of the Hebrew word הֵילֵל(heylel the light bearer morning star) either. Satan is not a bad word at all. Christ the Angel of the Lord himself is called שָׂטָן(satan) in (Numbers 22:22). The Angel of the Lord was an adversaryשָׂטָן(satan) to Balaam, because Balaam kindeled the anger of God. The Hebrew noun (satan) simply means adversary and nothing more. God is love, but God is also sovereign, and therefore 100% moral and without error. Which means God and God alone has the authority to either spare a man, o condemn a man to outer darkness. And God makes it crystal that if he gives a man faith in his son the Christ, that man will be spared outer darkness because of his son the Christ's sake alone. Those sheep God gives to his son the Christ are adopted as sons and daughters and are joint heirs to the son's property for the son's sake. The shepherd son gave his life for his sheep, and bought them with a blood price(1 Cor 6:20), so those who were bought by the shepherd are now his sheep. If you aren't bought by God, then it's outer darkness for you, and you deserve even worse, as do all men. So in the words of the great poet William Munny "Deserves got nothin to do with it". You are either one of the chosen few, or you are not. End of story.

I always thought your Christianity was nuttier than most but this takes the cake. But I was wrong. I now realizt that you're not Christian at all. This is a cult. What is this Satanism? This is terrible. It takes all my effort to finish reading this pure evil diatribe. How can you worship a monster god like this?

 

I far perfer naomi's god or Fumbleweed's god. As far as cults go, I even prefer John Travolta's or Mitt Romney's to yours.

 

Not all religions are equally stupid. Yours is tied at the bottom of the barrell with Osama bin Laden's, David Koresh's, Jim Jones' and Marshall Applewhite's.

[Gepetto 1,368]

I always thought your Christianity was nuttier than most but this takes the cake. But I was wrong. I now realizt that you're not Christian at all. This is a cult. What is this Satanism? This is terrible. It takes all my effort to finish reading this pure evil diatribe. How can you worship a monster god like this?

 

I far perfer naomi's god or Fumbleweed's god. As far as cults go, I even prefer John Travolta's or Mitt Romney's to yours.

 

Not all religions are equally stupid. Yours is tied at the bottom of the barrell with Osama bin Laden's, David Koresh's, Jim Jones' and Marshall Applewhite's.

 

 

I'm beginning to think Savage Beast is Satan. I mean he could do a hell of a good job preaching that to get people to turn away from God.

[Blitzen 0]

Universalism is un-Biblical. When men seek out to find God, they join cults. Because men can't choose God, God has to choose men. Christ made it clear that "NO MAN" comes to salvation unless God himself draws him to salvation(John 6:44). Most American churches teach watered down "universalism" which states that all you have to do is choose Jesus, say a prayer, and you will be saved. Which is total "bullsh!+". God only chooses an elect few for salvation, for his glory alone, and the rest are doomed to the destruction we all deserve for disobeying God constantly. Christ said himself that God gives him his sheep, and that his sheep know his voice. So how can a goat know the shepherd's voice if he is not one of the sheep? He can't, that's how. So how do you know you are selected to God for adoption as one of his sons? If you are drawn by God to Christ by his voice, that's how. It's not a choice "you" made, it's a choice "God" made(Eph 1:5). Since when has an orphan kicked in the front door of a man's house and told that man "I choose you to be my father, and everything you own is now mine"? It doesn't ever work that way. The father goes to the orphanage ans carefully selects the child who he wants to call his son, and then makes that child an heir to his property. The themes in the Bible are crystal clear, that only a few chosen people are spared by God, while the rest get what they rightly deserve, which is justice. Only the few chosen know the shepherds voice. Many are invited to the wedding, but the chosen of the wedding are few(Matt 22:14). And only the chosen have wedding garments, the rest are cast into outer darkness where they belong(Matt 22:13). The entire theme of the Bible is that God always chooses only a few men to save, while destroying the rest. And before you say "NO FAIR", every man who has ever been born deserves destruction, including even me, the Savage beast, a true prophet of God. God chose Abram(who was a pagan Arab cultist from Mesopotamia), and changed his name to Abraham, and made a covenant with this pagan man if he would do as God told him to. And Abraham did. But Abraham was not perfect by any means, he also disobeyed God and lied about Sarai(Sarah) being his wife in order to spare his own life. But God chose Abraham, so Abraham was righteous in God's eyes, so this is why Abraham is not in Hell. Because he was chosen by God. Abraham did not choose God, he was a pagan before God sought him out and chose him. Lot the nephew of Abraham was chosen by God to be spared from the utter destruction of Sodom and Gomorrah. The rest were destroyed, including Lot's own wife for disobeying God. Noah was chosen from his geographical Middle East region to be spared the flood, while the rest were destroyed. And Noah's family was spared as well, but only because God chose Noah, and it was Noah's imparted righteousness on his pagan sons that spared their lives. The bible does not say Noah chose God. Noah said "God, i choose you, and therefore I deserve to be spared from dying in the flood". That's not how it works. God chooses who he will spare from utter destruction, not the other way around. And "EVERY MAN" deserves to be destroyed, because every man has conceived sin in his heart(James 1:14-15), and please don't try to blame sin on the mythological creature called Lucifer. Because the Hebrew noun שָׂטָן(satan) means adversary, and it's not a capitalized proper name or a synonym of the Hebrew word הֵילֵל(heylel the light bearer morning star) either. Satan is not a bad word at all. Christ the Angel of the Lord himself is called שָׂטָן(satan) in (Numbers 22:22). The Angel of the Lord was an adversaryשָׂטָן(satan) to Balaam, because Balaam kindeled the anger of God. The Hebrew noun (satan) simply means adversary and nothing more. God is love, but God is also sovereign, and therefore 100% moral and without error. Which means God and God alone has the authority to either spare a man, o condemn a man to outer darkness. And God makes it crystal that if he gives a man faith in his son the Christ, that man will be spared outer darkness because of his son the Christ's sake alone. Those sheep God gives to his son the Christ are adopted as sons and daughters and are joint heirs to the son's property for the son's sake. The shepherd son gave his life for his sheep, and bought them with a blood price(1 Cor 6:20), so those who were bought by the shepherd are now his sheep. If you aren't bought by God, then it's outer darkness for you, and you deserve even worse, as do all men. So in the words of the great poet William Munny "Deserves got nothin to do with it". You are either one of the chosen few, or you are not. End of story.

 

Not only that, but you need to beat Iron Chef Morimoto in Battle Fancy Japanese Fudz before God will even consider you. Take that Tommy Cruise.